Author: Harsh Voruganti

Last year, Brett Talley’s nomination to the federal bench died as doubts were raised about his temperament, youth, and inexperience. Born in 1981, Talley was only 36 at the time of his nomination. While the Trump Administration has yet to send a nominee as young as Talley, Cam Barker, newly tapped for the Texas federal bench, comes pretty close, at only 37 years old. While Barker boasts an impressive resume, including stellar academic credentials, his position as Texas Deputy Solicitor General has given him a footprint in many deeply controversial cases.

Background

John Campbell “Cam” Barker was born in New Orleans, LA in 1980. Barker attended Texas A&M University, graduating with a B.S. summa cum laude in 2002. He proceeded to the University of Texas Law School, graduating with a J.D. with highest honors in 2005. After graduating, Barker clerked for Judge John Walker on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and then for Judge William Bryson on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

After his clerkships, Barker joined the U.S. Department of Justice Criminal Division as a Trial Attorney. He worked there until 2011. During that time, he had a short stint as a Special Assistant United States Attorney on detail with the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Virginia.

In 2011, Barker left the government to join the Houston office of Yetter Coleman LLP as an associate. In 2014, Barker was named a partner at the firm.

In 2015, Barker was hired by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton to be Deputy Solicitor General for the State of Texas, working under Solicitor General Scott Keller. Barker continues to serve in that position today.

History of the Seat

The seat Barker has been nominated for opened on May 15, 2015, with Judge Leonard Davis’ move to senior status. Although the seat opened with 19 months left in the Obama Administration, no nominee was ever put forward to fill the vacancy, possibly due to an inability to reach an agreement with Texas’ Republican Senators, John Cornyn and Ted Cruz.

In February 2017, Barker applied for a judgeship with the Federal Judicial Evaluation Committee set up by Cornyn and Cruz.[1] He interviewed with the Committee in March and then with Cornyn and Cruz in May. Barker’s name was submitted to the White House in July 2017.[2] After interviews with the White House Counsel’s Office and the Department of Justice, Barker was nominated on January 23, 2018.

Legal Experience

Other than his clerkships, Barker has held three primary legal positions: as a trial attorney with the Department of Justice; in private practice with Yetter Coleman; and as Deputy Solicitor General for Texas. In these positions, Barker has practiced extensively in state and federal courts.

Department of Justice

From 2007 to 2011, Barker worked in the appellate section of the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice.[3] In this capacity, Barker argued 12 criminal appeals in the federal appellate courts, generally defending convictions in federal criminal actions,[4] although, in some cases, Barker also appealed from adverse lower court rulings.[5]

In 2009, Barker detailed at the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Virginia, where he was the lead prosecutor against three MS-13 gang members who were subsequently convicted of conspiracy and racketeering.[6]

Yetter Coleman

From 2011 to 2015, Barker worked as an associate and a partner at Yetter Coleman LLP. In this role, Barker primarily carried a civil litigation caseload, including representing Bear Ranch, a beef producer, in a contract dispute,[7] and defending Oklahoma Gas & Electric Co. in a multidistrict patent infringement suit.[8]

Other than his civil docket, Barker also represented a Nepali immigrant seeking political asylum in the United States after facing torture from Maoists in Nepal.[9] Barker was able to reverse the Board of Immigration Appeals decision denying his client asylum.[10]

Deputy Solicitor General

Since 2015, Barker has served as Deputy Solicitor General in Texas. In this capacity, Barker has participated in a number of controversial cases.

For example, Barker was on the legal team, alongside Keller and Fifth Circuit nominee Andy Oldham, that sought to enjoin the Obama Administration’s DAPA initiative. Barker succeeded in getting a nationwide injunction against the initiative from U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen and in defending that injunction before the Fifth Circuit and the U.S. Supreme Court.[11] The Texas legal team was able to convince Judge Hanen that Texas suffered an injury from the Obama Administration’s prioritization of certain deportations and that the DAPA initiative violated the separation of powers.[12]

In another controversial case, Barker defended Texas’ Voter ID law, which was challenged as an unconstitutional poll tax, being passed with a discriminatory purpose and effect, and creating a substantial burden to the right to vote.[13] The law has been struck down by Judge Nelva Gonzalez Ramos, whose injunction has been stayed pending appeal.[14]

Barker has also represented the State of Texas as intervenors in the suits over President Trump’s executive orders restricting entry into the United States for travelers from seven predominantly Muslim countries, seeking to defend the constitutionality of the orders.[15]

Writings

As a law student, Barker authored an article discussing the statutory damages award for copyright infringement.[16] In the article, Barker argues that the aggregation of statutory damages across many instances of misconduct creates a penalty “so large that it becomes grossly excessive in relation to any legitimate interest in punishment and deterrence.”[17] He notes that this aggregation becomes particularly severe when imposed against those engaged in unauthorized file sharing, such as through sites such as Napster.[18]

Barker argues in the note that, because the statutory damages scheme under the Copyright Act is “punitive” in nature, that it is limited by the Substantive Due Process Clause, as interpreted under BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore.[19] He also notes that a defendant who illegally shares multiple files is not proportionally more culpable than a defendant who illegally shares one.[20] As such, Barker endorses a rethinking of the statutory damages scheme and suggests the imposition of “much smaller penalties across a larger spectrum of the file-sharing public.”[21]

Overall Assessment

Given both his youth and his involvement in the controversial DAPA, voter id, and travel ban cases, it is unlikely that Barker will be considered a consensus nominee. Barker’s critics will argue that, given Barker’s prominent role in “political” litigation at the Texas Solicitor General’s Office and his support for the travel ban, that this is an instance of the Trump Administration rewarding an unqualified supporter with a federal judgeship.

However, Barker boasts an impressive resume and can point to several factors in his favor. Firstly, having graduated law school in 2005, Barker meets the ABA’s criteria of twelve years of practice. Secondly, Barker has clerked for judges appointed by Republican and Democratic presidents. Thirdly, Barker worked at the Department of Justice under both the Bush and the Obama Administration, defending their legal positions in court. Finally, Barker can point to his defense in the Sharma case to counter suggestions that he is anti-immigrant.

Barker’s law review note raises an additional point. While it may not be representative of his current views, the article demonstrates a strong concern with the proportionality of punishment and endorses the active use of the Substantive Due Process Clause to limit civil (and criminal) penalties that are excessive. If Barker maintains these views, it is possible that he may yet end up endearing himself to liberals and disappointing many conservatives on the bench.

“Unconfirmed” seeks to revisit nominees who were never confirmed to lifetime appointments, to explore the factors why, and to understand the people involved.

If you’ve been nominated to the federal bench, the best case scenario you hope for is that your nomination draws little attention or controversy and that you slide through the process fairly anonymously. While many judges achieve this, occasionally, a nominee is drawn into a bigger conflict and becomes a pawn in a fight between Congress and the Administration. This Black History month, we recount one such contentious nominee: Judge Frederica Massiah-Jackson.

Long before her nomination sparked numerous floor fights, Massiah-Jackson was making waves as a student, graduating from Philadelphia Girls High School at just sixteen and finishing law school at the University of Pennsylvania at age 23.[1] After a clerkship at the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, and seven years in private practice, Massiah-Jackson was elected to be a judge on the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas at just 33 years old. Starting in 1992, Massiah-Jackson also began lecturing at the Wharton School, teaching Legal Studies and Business Law. As such, when President Clinton tapped her to be the first female African-American judge on the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, it seemed the capstone to an already impressive career.

There were no signs of trouble early in Massiah-Jackson’s nomination. While she had established a reputation as a “liberal, outspoken judge,”[2] she also boasted the support of Pennsylvania’s U.S. Senators Arlen Specter and Rick Santorum, both Republicans.[3] Even as Massiah-Jackson’s nomination was left off a September 1997 hearing that two other Pennsylvania nominees appeared at,[4] Judiciary Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-UT) assured Specter that Massiah-Jackson’s questionnaire had arrived late to the Committee, and that she would be scheduled for the next hearing.[5]

Unfortunately, the confirmation quickly began to get rocky. At her hearing in October 1997, Massiah-Jackson faced a series of skeptical Republican senators, with Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) criticizing her use of profanity from the bench in an early case, while Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) called out her rulings in favor of criminal defendants, suggesting that Massiah-Jackson lacked “sufficient respect for prosecutors’ burdens and problems.”[6] Massiah-Jackson pushed back against that assertion, arguing that “a close reading” of her record would show no pattern of leniency to defendants.[7]

Despite the tenor of the questioning, Specter and Santorum maintained their strong support for Massiah-Jackson and she was approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee in November 1997 on a 12-6 vote.[8] As the senate prepared to recess, Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-MS) teed up a floor vote in early January 1998.[9]

However, a quick confirmation for Massiah-Jackson was derailed by two incidents. First, Northampton County District Attorney John Morganelli, a conservative Democrat, announced in early January that he would conduct an “all-out-effort” to block Massiah-Jackson, calling her “anti-police and anti-prosecutor.”[10] Morganelli was soon joined by the opposition of Philadelphia District Attorney Lynne Abraham and the Pennsylvania District Attorney’s Association.[11] Additionally, Pennsylvania Attorney General D. Michael Fisher (a future federal judge himself) also weighed in against Massiah-Jackson.[12] With Pennsylvania prosecutors crusading against Massiah-Jackson’s nomination, Senate Republicans delayed the confirmation vote.

Second, the slow pace of judicial confirmations and the rapid rise in judicial vacancies prompted a rare rebuke of the Senate from both Chief Justice William Rehnquist and President Clinton in his State of the Union address.[13] Called out from both branches, Senate Republicans were eager to show that Clinton was putting forward unqualified nominees by defeating one in a floor vote.[14] With Morganelli’s and Abraham’s prominent opposition, Republicans focused on Massiah-Jackson as the ideal test case.

Critics of the Massiah-Jackson nomination made two primary charges against her: first, they pointed to her rulings against the prosecution in 4-5 cases to allege that she had an anti-prosecution and anti-police bias; second, they cited her use of profanity in two cases, and her admonishment from a disciplinary tribunal, to suggest the lack of a proper judicial temperament.[15] In response, Massiah-Jackson’s supporters accused her critics of “cherry-picking” her record and suggested that the criticism was racially motivated.[16]

Hoping to avoid further acrimony, Specter and Santorum convened a meeting between Massiah-Jackson and critical prosecutors, hoping to have their concerns addressed directly.[17] Unfortunately, the meeting did not yield a breakthrough, and the senators reluctantly agreed to delay the senate vote further to allow critics to put together “the best evidence against [Massiah-Jackson].”[18]

Unfortunately, by this point, Senate Republicans were coalescing against the nomination. Confident of defeating Massiah-Jackson, Lott pushed for a quick vote.[19] However, hoping to salvage the nomination, Specter pushed for a second hearing to allow Massiah-Jackson to publicly refute the charges against her.[20] In an emotional exchange, Specter clashed on the senate floor with Sen. John Ashcroft (R-MO), with Ashcroft declaring that any senator supporting Massiah-Jackson was “betraying our oath of office,” prompting Specter to call it a “personal insult.”[21] Ultimately, Specter and Santorum won the day: Massiah-Jackson was pulled back into Committee for a second hearing.[22]

At her second hearing, Massiah-Jackson answered critics over three and a half hours, professing her support for law enforcement and prosecutors.[23] However, alongside previous criticism, a new line of questioning emerged, with Massiah-Jackson accused of “outing” two undercover police officers at a court hearing.[24] Despite Massiah-Jackson’s supporters arguing that there was no record of the alleged incident, and that, even in the critics’ telling, it was impossible to “out” an officer who had just testified, the allegations were sufficient to draw Hatch, who had previously supported Massiah-Jackson, into opposition.[25]

With the second hearing concluded, the senate prepared for a final vote. However, Specter once-again demanded a delay to allow Massiah-Jackson a chance to respond to the recent allegations.[26] However, the vote was rapidly becoming a foregone conclusion, with even Santorum announcing that he would not support the nomination.[27] Four days later, Massiah-Jackson withdrew her nomination, stating that she could not remain silent as a nominee and allow “selected, one-sided and unsubstantiated charges to go unanswered.”[28] With her withdrawal, she managed to avoid defeat in an up-or-down vote.

Regardless of whether one accepts the criticisms against Massiah-Jackson, it is difficult to argue that the confirmation process served her well. Rather, the drip-by-drip release of allegations against Massiah-Jackson, allegations that she, bound by the ethical requirements of a judicial nominee, could not publicly refute, essentially ensured that unsubstantiated claims went unanswered. As Specter noted in a fiery floor speech, when Massiah-Jackson was given no notice as to the allegations against her, it was “impossible for her to respond in a way which would convince fairminded people as to what the facts were.”[29] Furthermore, while Specter, Santorum and many Philadelphia attorneys went to bat for Massiah-Jackson, she received little public support from the Clinton Administration, who quickly replaced her as a nominee with Judge Robert Freedberg, a white male.[30]

Ultimately, the Massiah-Jackson saga left lingering divisions in Philadelphia, with many african american voters upset at Abraham for her role in the battle.[31] For her part, Massiah-Jackson was able to stay on the state bench, where she continues to serve to this day. In an ironic turn of fate, in 2017, Massiah-Jackson led the team of judges that selected Kelley B. Hodge an interim D.A. in Philadelphia upon the resignation of Seth Williams. Among the candidates rejected for the position: Massiah-Jackson’s old foe Lynne Abraham.

[16]Suzette Parmley, Blacks Denounce D.A./ A Group of Leaders Wants Lynne Abraham Recalled for the way She Opposed the Nomination of Judge Frederica Massiah-Jackson to the Federal Bench, Philadelphia Inquirer, Jan. 13, 1998.

[30]The seat was ultimately filled by another african american female: Judge Petrese Tucker.

[31]See Tom Infield, Abraham Faces a Genuine Challenge; Though the D.A. is Favored to Win Re-election, Some Black Philadelphians View Her as a Symbol of a Biased System, Philadelphia Inquirer, May 13, 2001.

A well-respected magistrate judge with over twenty-two years on the bench, Judge Susan Paradise Baxter is a consensus nominee from the Trump Administration. Her moderate background and support from senators of both parties, as well as her previous nomination from President Obama, should ensure a relatively smooth confirmation process.

Background

A Western Pennsylvania native, Baxter was born Susan Rose Paradise on September 20, 1956, in Latrobe, in the Pittsburgh suburbs.[1] Baxter attended Pennsylvania State University, overlapping with fellow nominee Marilyn Horan, and graduating with a B.S. in 1978. Baxter went on to get a Masters in Education and then a Juris Doctor from Temple University.[2]

After graduating, Baxter joined Cole Raywid & Braverman (now Davis Wright & Tremaine LLP) in Washington D.C. as an associate. In 1989, Baxter became a partner at the firm.

In 1994, Baxter returned to Pennsylvania to serve as a court solicitor for the Court of Common Pleas for Erie County.[3] A year later, Baxter was named to be a federal magistrate judge for the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.[4] Baxter continues to serve in that position today.

History of the Seat

The seat Baxter has been nominated for opened on August 16, 2013, with the resignation of Judge Sean McLaughlin. In August 2013, Baxter applied for a federal judgeship with the application committee set up by Pennsylvania’s U.S. Senators Bob Casey (D-PA) and Pat Toomey (R-PA).[5] Baxter interviewed with Casey and his staff in early 2015 and with Toomey in March of that year.[6] In July 2015, Baxter was then nominated by President Obama for the vacancy on the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.[7]

While Baxter had bipartisan support for the seat and was unanimously voted out of the Judiciary Committee in January 2016, she never received a floor vote and her nomination was returned at the end of the 114th Congress.

In January 2017, Toomey and Casey indicated their support for re-nominating Baxter for the Western District. Baxter was officially re-nominated for the vacancy on December 20, 2017.[8]

Legal Experience

From 1983 to 1992, Baxter worked as an associate and a partner at Cole Raywid & Braverman in Washington D.C. At the firm, Baxter handled approximately 100 cases, going to trial in ten cases.[9] Among the most significant matters that Baxter handled at the firm, she represented a class of over one hundred former employees and stockholders of U.S. News & World Report in bringing an ERISA action.[10] In 1994, Baxter’s family moved to Erie and Baxter worked as the Solicitor to the Erie County Court of Common Pleas, representing the judges on the court .[11]

Jurisprudence

Baxter has served as a federal magistrate judge for the last twenty two years. During this time, Baxter handles pretrial matters in criminal and civil cases, as well as offering reports and recommendations to district court judges.[12] Baxter also presides over civil cases with the consent of both parties, handling 20 cases to verdict and judgment over her tenure on the bench.[13] Baxter has also written over 1300 opinions.[14]

Among her more prominent cases, Baxter presided over a class action suit under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) challenging the lack of wheelchair ramps in many Erie intersections.[15] Baxter certified the class of plaintiffs in the case, and presided over the entry of a consent decree to ensure compliance with the ADA.[16] In another notable case, Baxter presided over unsuccessful settlement negotiations related to alleged Clean Air Act violations committed by the Erie Coke Corporation.[17]

Over the last twenty two years, Baxter has been reversed approximately nineteen times in over 1300 decisions she has made.[18] In seventeen cases, Baxter’s report and recommendation was adopted by the district court, but the decision was ultimately reversed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.[19] In two cases, Baxter’s report and recommendation was rejected by the district court, but was ultimately imposed by the Third Circuit.[20]

Political Activity

While Baxter is a Democrat, she has not been involved with any political party or campaign.[21]

Overall Assessment

Generally speaking, any nominee put forward by two administrations of different political parties is likely to be fairly uncontroversial. Baxter is no different. Her record on the bench reflects a close adherence to precedent and her low reversal rate suggests her relatively mainstream jurisprudence. Furthermore, she has largely avoided controversial positions throughout her career and has the enthusiastic support of her home state senators (both of different political parties). As such, Baxter will likely be confirmed swiftly with a strong bipartisan majority.

It is not uncommon for unconfirmed nominees at the end of a president’s term to be renominated by a future president and then confirmed. However, William Jung is unique as a nominee to have been renominated by two presidents of different parties only to see both nominations fail. Now, Jung has been nominated by a third president and has to hope that the third time’s the charm.

Background

William Frederic Jung was born on March 29, 1958 in Fort Belvoir, Virginia. Jung graduated magna cum laude from Vanderbilt University in 1980 and summa cum laude from the University of Illinois College of Law in 1983. After graduating, Jung clerked for Judge Gerald Bard Tjoflat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit and for then-Associate Justice William Rehnquist on the U.S. Supreme Court.[1][2]

While most Supreme Court clerks parlay their clerkships into D.C.-based positions at large law firms, Jung instead joined the Tampa office of Carlton Fields Jordan Burt, P.A. as an associate.[3] After two years, Jung moved to Miami to join the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida as an Assistant U.S. Attorney (AUSA).[4] In 1990, Jung moved back to Tampa to be an AUSA in the Middle District of Florida.[5]

In 1993, Jung joined Anthony K. Black in starting the law firm Black & Jung, P.A.[6] The firm was renamed Jung & Sisco, P.A. in 2000 when Black left and attorney Paul Sisco joined the firm. Jung continues to practice as a partner at the firm to the present.

In 2007, Jung was one of 36 applicants to fill two vacant judgeships on the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida.[7] He was selected as one of four finalists by U.S. Senators Bill Nelson (D-FL) and Mel Martinez (R-FL).[8] On July 10, 2008, Jung and U.S. Magistrate Judge Mary Stenson Scriven were nominated for the vacancies by President George W. Bush. While Scriven was confirmed by the Senate on September 26, 2008, Jung did not get a hearing from the Democratic-controlled Judiciary Committee and his nomination was returned to the President. President Obama declined to renominate Jung and instead nominated another finalist, Judge Charlene Honeywell, who was confirmed.

In 2013, Jung again applied to fill one of two open judgeships on the Middle District.[9] Nelson and Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) selected Jung as one of four finalists.[10] However, Obama chose to appoint two other finalists, Judge Carlos Mendoza and Paul Byron, who were confirmed.

In 2015, when two more seats opened on the Middle District, Jung applied once more.[11] This time, Jung was nominated by Obama for the vacancy, alongside Judge Patricia Barksdale. However, as in 2008, Jung’s nomination did not receive a hearing from the Republican-controlled Senate Judiciary Committee and was returned unconfirmed to the President.

History of the Seat

Jung has been nominated to a seat on the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida. This seat opened on August 1, 2015, when Judge Anne Conway moved to senior status. On April 28, 2016, Jung was nominated by President Obama to fill this vacancy. However, the Senate did not take any action on Jung’s nomination.

In early 2017, Nelson and Rubio urged Trump to renominate Jung and two other unconfirmed Obama picks in Florida.[12] Jung was formally nominated on December 20, 2017.

Legal Experience

Jung started his legal career as a litigation associate at Carlton Fields. In this role, Jung tried one “slip and fall” trial and handled one appeal in the Eleventh Circuit before becoming a federal prosecutor.[13] As a federal prosecutor, Jung tried nearly 40 federal trials including white collar and public corruption cases. Among his more notable cases, Jung prosecuted Tampa lawyer Charles Corces for “fixing” cases in collusion with state prosecutors.[14]

In 1993, Jung left the U.S. Attorney’s Office to start his own law firm. In this role, Jung’s practice is evenly divided between complex civil and criminal defense matters. Jung has particularly made a name in white collar defense, representing, among others, baseball players prosecuted for their use of steroids,[15] healthcare executives accused for accounting fraud,[16] a seafood company accused of importing rancid shrimp,[17] and the human resources director of a company alleged to have hired undocumented workers.[18]

Political Activity

Jung has been fairly active as a Republican donor, donating $2500 for Martinez’s 2004 campaign and $2500 to Rubio’s 2010 campaign, among others.[19] Additionally, Jung served on the Hillsborough County Republican Central Executive Committee between 1998 and 2002.[20]

Jung has also supported Florida Democrat Dan Gelber, hosting a reception for his senate campaign in 2010 and donating $1350 to his campaign.[21]

Writings

Throughout his legal career, Jung has occasionally written on issues of law and policy. Three articles that Jung has authored are particularly interesting.

Corporate Rights

In 1983, as a law student, Jung authored an article arguing that the Indictment Clause of the Fifth Amendment, which prohibits prosecution for a capital or infamous crime without a grand jury indictment, applies to corporations.[22] While acknowledging that a corporation cannot face a capital charge, Jung delves into the common law history of “infamy” to argue that corporate infamy is not based on the potential for incarceration.[23] Rather, Jung argues that, given the importance of public opinion on a corporation, it serves as a serious deterrent on criminal conduct.[24] As such, Jung argues that corporations should receive the protections of indictment via grand juries.

Miranda v. Arizona

In a 2009 article, Jung discussed the Supreme Court decision in Miranda v. Arizona and the role of Chief Justice Rehnquist in reshaping the jurisprudence.[25] Jung also makes a series of recommendations to improve Miranda including the implementation of uniform warnings and a requirement that all custodial interrogations be recorded.[26]

School Desegregation

In 2006, Jung wrote for the Florida Bar Journal in praise of his former boss Judge Tjoflat: specifically, praising Tjoflat’s implementation of the Supreme Court’s desegregation mantle in Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education as applied to the segregated Jacksonville school district.[27] Specifically, Jung’s praises Tjoflat’s decision to insist of immediate desegregation rather than gradual and suggests that the judge is an unlikely hero of desegregation alongside civil rights heroes such as the Fifth Circuit four.[28]

Overall Assessment

While Jung’s last two nominations ended in disappointment, there is good reason to expect Jung to be confirmed this time around. First, Jung’s nomination has the requisite qualifications for a district court appointment. He has over thirty years of federal practice experience and has handled almost fifty federal trials. Second, Jung is not particularly controversial, having the support of both Rubio and Nelson. Finally, Jung’s last two nominations were made by a lame duck president facing an opposition congress in the last year of his term. This time, Jung faces a senate that is eager to confirm Trump’s picks. As such, his nomination will likely be confirmed fairly smoothly.

During the confirmation process, Jung may be asked to elaborate his views on the proper role of a trial judge, given his strong praise for Judge Tfolat’s assertive actions during the Jacksonville desegregation crisis. He may also be asked to explain his views on corporate rights and whether he has evolved his opinion that corporate crimes are “infamous” for Fifth Amendment purposes. However, barring the unexpected, such inquiries are unlikely to derail his nomination. After all, if Bush and Obama and Trump were able to agree on Jung’s fitness for the bench, it is unlikely that senators would disagree.

A prominent Roswell-based attorney for the oil and gas industry and a part-time federal magistrate judge, Joel Carson is Trump’s second nominee to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, replacing the conservative Judge Paul Kelly.

Background

Joel McElroy Carson III was born in Artesia, New Mexico on November 16, 1971.[1] Carson attended Texas Tech University in Lubbock, getting a B.B.A. in Finance in 1994.[2] After graduating, Carson returned to New Mexico to attend the University of New Mexico Law School, getting his J.D. in 1997. Carson then clerked for Judge Bobby Baldock on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit and then joined the Roswell firm Hinkle Hensley Shanor & Martin LLP as an associate. In 2002, Carson became a partner at the firm.[3]

In 2008, Carson left the firm to join the Mack Energy Corporation as General Counsel.[4] He stayed there for five years, leaving in 2014 to start his own firm Carson Ryan LLC.[5]

In 2015, Carson was tapped to be a part-time federal magistrate judge in Roswell, New Mexico.[6] He continues to serve in that capacity, while maintaining his firm.

History of the Seat

Carson has been tapped for a New Mexico seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. The seat is being vacated by Judge Paul Kelly’s decision to move to senior status upon the confirmation of his successor.

In early 2017, Carson expressed his interest in the Tenth Circuit appointment to Rep. Steve Pearce (R-NM) and Sen. Tom Udall (D-NM).[7] After an interview with the White House Counsel’s Office in May 2017, Carson was selected as a finalist for the seat by the White House, who sent five names to Udall and Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-NM).[8] Among the names sent was that of William Levi, a Washington D.C. based associate at Sidley Austin who had been a clerk to Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito and was only 33 years old.[9] Udall balked at Levi’s name and suggested that another finalist, Judge James Browning of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico, would have his support.[10] Nevertheless, the White House decided not to nominate Browning or Levi, and instead nominated Carson for the seat on December 20, 2017.

Political Activity

Carson has been active in the Republican Party of New Mexico, serving on its Executive Committee, as well as the Secretary in 2011.[11] Carson also volunteered with the Romney campaign in 2012 and the campaign of former senator Pete Domenici.[12] Carson has also frequently spoken at Chavez County Republican Party functions, introducing other speakers including Domenici, Pearce, and Governor Susana Martinez.[13]

Carson has also frequently contributed to Republican candidates, including Domenici. Notably, he has given approximately $10000 to Pearce over the last fifteen years.[14] Carson also donated to the unsuccessful senate candidacies of Republicans Heather Wilson and Rick Berg in 2012 and to Sen. Ted Cruz in 2015.[15] Carson has occasionally donated to New Mexico Democrats as well, including former Congressman Harry Teague and former Governor Bill Richardson.[16]

Legal Career

Carson has spent most of his legal career working with issues involving the energy industry, utilities, water and land rights. As an attorney in private practice and as an in-house counsel at the Mack Energy Corporation, Carson handled complex energy litigation and transactions. Among his more prominent cases, Carson represented an energy company seeking Takings Clause damages for the government’s delay in approving applications for permits to drill (APDs).[17] While the Court of Federal Claims ruled for Carson’s client in the case, the Federal Circuit reversed, rejecting Carson’s argument that the delay in approving the permits constituted a regulatory taking.[18]

Outside his oil and gas expertise, Carson also represented the New Mexico legislature in defending its redistricting plans against legal challenges.[19] Carson has also frequently represented indigent defendants as court-appointed counsel.[20]

Jurisprudence

Carson has served as a part-time federal magistrate judge since 2015. In this role, Carson manages only criminal proceedings and habeas actions. In the last three years, Carson has handled three cases to verdict or judgment, as well as writing one recommendation for a district judge.[21] The three trials Carson handled, two bench and one jury, all involve criminal citations arising from crimes committed on federal property. In the sole jury trial he presided over, the jury found the defendant not guilty of driving under the influence on an air force base.[22] In the two bench trials, Carson found for the United States in one case[23] and for the defendant in another.[24] In the sole habeas case he handled, Carson recommended that a prisoner’s habeas petition based on ineffective assistance of counsel be dismissed.[25]

Scholarship

As a law student at the University of New Mexico, Carson authored a paper titled “Reintroducing the Mexican Wolf”, which discussed the constitutional implications of property loss through the reintroduction of endangered species.[26] Specifically, Carson argues that federal officials who reintroduce the wolf may find themselves constitutionally liable for damage the wolf inflicts.

In the paper, Carson argues that reintroducing a predator species such as the Mexican wolf would open officials up to Takings Clause actions from cattle farmers who lose animals. Specifically, Carson suggests that such losses would constitute both a per se taking and a regulatory taking.[27] While acknowledging that courts have previously held that damage from protected wildlife does not constitute a compensable taking,[28] Carson argues that such cases would come out differently when the government exercises “pervasive control” over the animals.[29] Carson notes that “[d]epradations by Mexican wolves appear to fit neatly within the academic confines of takings law.”[30]

Carson goes on to suggest that federal officials who reintroduce endangered species could be liable for damages under Bivens.[31] Specifically, Carson suggests that the federal government’s refusal to timely remove a wolf that roams onto private land would be “a picture perfect scenario for a Bivens claim.”[32] Nevertheless, Carson steps back from a wholesale endorsement of Bivens actions based on wolf depredation, arguing that the Fish & Wildlife Service should instead create a compensation procedure to avoid the attorney’s costs associated with lawsuits.[33] He concludes with the following observation:

“When citizens lose livestock to Mexican wolves, their private property has been taken for a public purpose. Just compensation is due and the citizen should not be required to litigate all the way to the Supreme Court to recover.”[34]

Overall Assessment

Having worked there for twenty years, Carson is well-respected in the New Mexico legal community. His (albeit brief) record on the federal bench does not suggest a bias for or against criminal defendants or the government. In fact, his two bench rulings have come down evenly, one conviction and one acquittal. Furthermore, unlike most Trump appellate nominees, Carson does not appear to have any ties to the Federalist Society. As such, it is reasonable to assume that Carson will likely have a smooth confirmation to the federal bench.

However, Carson may face questions regarding his view on Takings jurisprudence. Specifically, he may be questioned as to whether he will follow Tenth Circuit precedent holding that losses from wild animals do not constitute compensable takings. He may also be questioned as to whether he agrees that federal officials who reintroduce wild animals can be sued under Bivens. (Interestingly, his broad view of Bivens liability may endear him to civil rights attorneys who argue that Bivens has been construed unduly narrowly by the courts).

If senators find that Carson’s views on Bivens and the Takings Clause are within the legal mainstream, he will likely be confirmed swiftly, and, at only forty-six, will shape Tenth Circuit jurisprudence for decades to come.

[31] In Bivens v. Six Unknown Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), the Supreme Court recognized a private right of action for individuals seeking to sue federal officials for damages from the violations of their constitutional rights.

The U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, one of the nation’s busiest trial courts, is currently down two judges. In seeking common ground with the state’s two Democratic senators, the Trump Administration has agreed to nominate two candidates recommended by them: one is a Republican former-U.S. Attorney, Colm Connolly; the other is Maryellen Noreika, a commercial litigator and a Democrat.

Background

Maryellen Noreika was born in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania on July 12, 1966. Noreika attended Lehigh University in Pennsylvania, getting a Bachelor in Science in 1988.[1] After graduating, Noreika received an M.A. in Biology from Columbia University and then a J.D. magna cum laude at the University of Pittsburgh.

After graduating law school, Noreika joined Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, where she had been a summer associate.[2] While at the firm, she briefly overlapped with her fellow nominee Connolly, who was a partner at the firm before his appointment as U.S. Attorney. In 2001, Noreika became a partner at the firm and has served in that capacity until the present.

History of the Seat

Noreika has been nominated for a vacancy on the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. This seat was opened by Judge Gregory Sleet’s move to senior status on May 1, 2017. Noreika’s nomination was recommended and made in tandem with that of Connolly’s, who was nominated to fill a second vacancy on the court.

In mid-2017, Noreika interviewed with the selection committee set up by Senators Tom Carper and Chris Coons (D-DE).[3] Noreika was one of three candidates recommended by the committee.[4] She was formally nominated on December 20, 2017.

Legal Experience

Noreika has spent virtually her entire legal career at the firm of Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, starting as a summer associate while in law school, becoming an associate after she graduated, and finally becoming a partner in 2001.[5] While at the firm, Noreika solely practiced civil litigation, primarily focusing on intellectual property issues.[6] Among the most prominent cases she handled, Noreika represented a drug manufacturer in a successful suit based on infringement of hydrocone patents.[7]

In another notable case, Noreika represented Paradox Entertainment, whose character Red Sonya had been sued for trademark infringement by Red Sonja LLC.[8] Serving as lead counsel for Paradox, Noreika was able to settle the infringement suit on the second day of trial for nominal damages of $1.[9]

Political Activity

Noreika may be a registered Democrat but she has donated several times to Republicans including the Presidential campaigns of John McCain and Mitt Romney.[10] Noreika has also donated $3000 to Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) and $1000 to then-Sen. Rick Santorum in 2005.[11] On the other side, Noreika gave $1000 to Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) in 2008 as well as $1000 to the DSCC in 2009.[12]

Overall Assessment

The federal trial court in Delaware is home to some of the most complex commercial litigation in the country. As such, Noreika, with the depth of her experience, is well-suited to this specialized jurisdiction. While Noreika lacks the criminal experience to handle a significant portion of her docket, her civil experience more than makes up for this deficiency.

Furthermore, given Noreika’s strong support from Delaware’s senators, she is likely to be confirmed comfortably. Additionally, as Noreika is, on one hand, a registered Democrat, and, on the other, a frequent donor to Republican candidates, both sides are likely to find her an acceptable choice.

Ten years ago, Colm Connolly’s nomination for a federal judgeship failed due to the opposition of a home state senator. Now, he is getting a second opportunity, one that is much more likely to be successful.

Background

A native Delawarean, Colm Felix Connolly was born in Wilmington on October 18, 1964. Connolly attended the University of Notre Dame, getting his B.A. in 1986.[1] After graduating, Connolly moved to London to get a Masters in Science from the London School of Economics. After the program, Connolly joined the Delaware Department of the Treasury as Special Assistant to the Secretary.[2]

In 1988, Connolly joined the Duke University School of Law, getting a J.D. in 1991.[3] After graduating, Connolly clerked for Delaware native Judge Walter Stapleton on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.[4]

After his clerkship, Connolly joined the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Delaware, working as a federal prosecutor under U.S. Attorney Gregory Sleet.[5] After seven years there, Connolly left to join Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP.[6]

In 2001, Connolly was selected by newly elected President George W. Bush to serve as the U.S. Attorney for the District of Delaware.[7] Connolly served as U.S. Attorney throughout the Bush Administration, resigning upon the election of President Obama to join Morgan Lewis & Brockius LLP as a partner.[8] Connolly serves as a partner there currently.

In late 2006, U.S. District Judge Kent Jordan was elevated to the Third Circuit, and Connolly was considered the prime candidate to replace him.[9] In March 2007, U.S. Rep. Mike Castle (R-DE) recommended Connolly to fill the vacancy left by Jordan.[10] On February 26, 2008, Bush formally nominated Connolly for the seat.[11] However, Connolly did not have the support of then-U.S. Sen. Joe Biden, who used his blue slip to block the nomination.[12] As such, Connolly’s nomination never received a hearing or a vote.

History of the Seat

Connolly has been nominated for a vacancy opened by Judge Sue Lewis Robinson’s move to senior status on February 3, 2017. Connolly’s nomination was recommended and made in tandem with that of Maryellen Noreika, a Democrat, who was nominated to fill a second vacancy on the court.

In November 2016, after the election of Donald Trump, Connolly reached out to U.S. Senator Tom Carper (D-DE) to express his interest in the seat opening up by Robinson’s retirement.[13] In mid-2017, Connolly interviewed with the selection committee set up by Carper and U.S. Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE).[14] Connolly also interviewed with a parallel process led by Delaware Republican Party Chairman Mike Harrington Sr.[15] Ultimately, Connolly was the only candidate recommended by both processes.[16] He was formally nominated on December 20, 2017.

Legal Experience

Connolly’s twenty-five years in legal practice can be broken down into two parts: fifteen years as a federal prosecutor; and ten in private practice.

U.S. Attorney’s Office

In 1992, Connolly joined the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Delaware, primarily handling criminal cases, including drug and firearm crimes, money laundering, and civil rights violations.[17] In 1997, Connolly was the lead attorney in the most significant case of his career, the prosecution of prominent Delaware attorney Thomas Capano for the murder of his mistress Anne Marie Fahey.[18] As the head of the prosecution, Connolly developed the investigation plan and worked with witnesses to build the case against Capano.[19] Connolly also led the examination of witnesses, including Capano, prompting an outburst with Capano calling Connolly a “heartless, gutless, soulless disgrace for a human being.”[20] Ultimately, Connolly was able to secure a guilty verdict and the death penalty for Capano,[21] although the penalty was ultimately overturned by the Delaware Supreme Court.

In 2001, the 36-year-old Connolly was appointed to be U.S. Attorney for the District of Delaware. In his role as U.S. Attorney, Connolly dramatically increased the rate of prosecutions in the office.[22] Among his prosecutions, Connolly helped secure the largest forfeiture in Delaware history.[23] Connolly’s prosecutorial zeal also attracted some criticism. After Connolly indicted the Democratic leadership in New Castle County, the defendants complained that his conduct was motivated by political considerations.[24]

In 2007, Connolly’s name was found on a Justice Department list designating U.S. Attorneys to be removed or fired.[25] The concerns regarding Connolly were never made clear and Connolly served out his term as U.S. Attorney until the end of the Bush Presidency.[26]

Private Practice

Connolly has had two stints in private practice. First, Connolly worked as a partner with Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell, working primarily in civil litigation.[27] Second, after leaving the U.S. Attorney’s Office in 2009, Connolly has worked as a partner at Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP.[28] In this capacity, Connolly has handled primarily commercial litigation, but has also handled a few criminal defense matters. Among his more prominent clients, Connolly represented Kathy Klyce, the widow of Jack Wheeler, a prominent defense consultant who was found dead in a landfill in 2010.[29]

Political Activity

Connolly has been active with the Delaware Republican Party, serving in volunteer capacities on the campaigns of former-U.S. Sen. Bill Roth (R-DE), former-U.S. Rep. Mike Castle (R-DE), and as the co-chair of Delaware Lawyers for Bush.[30] Additionally, Connolly has donated to the Republican Party of Delaware, U.S. Rep. Susan Brooks (R-PA), former U.S. Rep. Pat Meehan (R-PA) and the 2012 campaign of Mitt Romney.[31]

Overall Assessment

While Connolly may have faced disappointment the first time he was tapped for the federal bench, all signs point to a smooth confirmation this time around.

First of all, unlike last time, Connolly has the support of his home state senators, with Carper and Coons expressing their support for the nomination.[32] Second, Connolly is also appearing before a Republican controlled senate (with no judicial filibuster). As such, unified Republican support (and the support of his home-state Democrats) should be enough to confirm him.

On a more substantive level, Connolly is well-qualified for a federal judgeship. His years as a federal prosecutor should leave him well-equipped to handle criminal trials and sentencing as a judge. Additionally, his time in private practice has given him the requisite civil experience as well.

As such, barring any Petersen-like slip-ups in his hearing, Connolly is a strong bet for a bipartisan confirmation. With the overburdened federal court in Delaware already half-empty, his future colleagues will only be too pleased to get some relief.